P. Ravidas Kamath Vs. Syndicate Bank - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....by the supreme court as noticed above, i find no good ground to stay the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. - karnataka stamp act, 1957 section 3: [anand byrareddy,j] instruments chargeable with duty - petitioner praying to strike down and declare as unconstitutional and void the insertion/introduction of explanation to article 6 in schedule of act - petitioner had availed credit from a co-operative bank by offering title deeds of immovable property as collateral security for repayment of loan amounts without reducing terms of such transaction into form of a document no memorandum of deposit of title deeds - in view of amendment act no.7 of 2006 to article 6 of schedule respondent demanded 5% stamp duty on transaction - held, it is clear that the phrase employed in the explanation namely for the purpose of clause (i) notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any authority would clearly indicate that the intention of the legislature was a blatant act to nullify the effect of the aforesaid judgments of this court as well as the apex court in holding that a transaction of the nature involved as in the present petition..........the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him under the prevention of corruption act (and the indian penal code, if any) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a matter of course but a considered decision. even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed.' 4. in the present case, admittedly the alleged offence pertains to the year 1988 and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner after a lapse of 8 years, are still pending. any direction by this court, as prayed, will amount to causing undue delay in disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, which in my opinion will be inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction by the court and since the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertains to improper handling of financial matters. any such stay is bound to effect the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

G.C. Bharuka, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for restraining the respondent from going ahead with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge sheet dated 13.1.1993 (Annexure-C) until the conclusion of the prosecution in Special Case No. 4/92 and 5/92 in the Court of Special Judge at Bombay. The Petitioner was admittedly working as a Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank at Marol Branch, Andheri (E), Bombay, When the Central Bureau of Investigation registered cases against him which culminated the charge sheet dated 26.2.92 filed under Sections 120B, 420 and 34 IPC read with 5(1)(d) and 5(2), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, the trial is pending. The respondent Management having waited for 5 years to know the conclusion of the Criminal proceedings, ultimately initiated disciplinary proceedings by serving a charge sheet dated 28.1.93 on the petitioner. Pursuant whereof, the petitioner filed his reply which is to the following effect:

'charge sheet Ref. N0.03/PD-IRD/DA-3 dated 13.1.93.

I acknowledge the receipt of the captioned charge sheet and have to inform you that I deny the charges alleged against me therein. I have to therefore request you to kindly treat the matter as closed.

Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter.'

2. The sole question involved herein is whether the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed till the final conclusion of the trial commenced against the petitioner. The Supreme Court in its latest decision in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHRI B.K. MEENA, 1966(8) SC 684 on consideration of its earlier Judgments in the cases of 1) Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and ors. : (1988)IILLJ470SC ; Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baji Nath Tiwari. 1979(1) SCR 134 (para 13); Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd v. Workmen : (1964)IILLJ113SC ; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, : (1960)ILLJ520SC and S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India : 1954CriLJ993 has held that:

I) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously,

II) Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. The interest of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously.

III) Disciplinary enquiry cannot be and should not be delayed unduly.

IV) The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different.

3. In paragraph 17 of its Judgment, the Supreme Court has held:

'There is yet another reason. The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal Code, if any) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed.'

4. In the present case, admittedly the alleged offence pertains to the year 1988 and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner after a lapse of 8 years, are still pending. Any direction by this Court, as prayed, will amount to causing undue delay in disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, which in my opinion will be inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction by the Court and since the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertains to improper handling of financial matters. Any such stay is bound to effect the good administration of a financial institution like the respondent Bank.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court as noticed above, I find no good ground to stay the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.